masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Mass Effect Wiki Town Hall
What this is all about So, here's the deal: I've been thinking of doing something like this for a while now, and some recent events lit the proverbial fire under my behind. I'm starting this forum up to give editors a place to express themselves, their ideas, opinions, frustrations, and so forth. And let's face it: town halls are in at the moment. So, here's what I'm thinking - we get some sections set up here, to serve a few purposes: #Questions for the Admins - where editors can ask questions of the admins (in general, or addressed to a specific admin), the questions to be answered by one or more of the following: SpartHawg948, Lancer1289, Commdor, JakePT. #Suggestions - where editors can make suggestions regarding current policies and such. For example, if an editor had a suggestion regarding the speculation policy, they could make it here, and it could be discussed by any and all who wish to take part. If a suggestion has a decent level of support, it can be forwarded to the Projects Forum proper. #Things I'd like to see - where editors can propose new features, new policies, etc. Basically, if it's something that isn't currently on the wiki that you'd like to see, put it here. Same as #2, if something here gets some support, it can move to the project forum. #General Comments - for general comments, duh! Basically, for any comments you'd like to make that don't really fall into the other three categories. We'll also need some ground rules. I'm thinking nothing too fancy, just the basics. #Be respectful of other users and their opinions. This rule applies to everyone. #Keep things topical and at least somewhat serious. For example, "SpartHawg948, why are you such a jerk?" or "Commdor, how is it possible for one man to be so awesome?" are not acceptable questions for the admins. Likewise, "Make it better." is not a legitimate suggestion. #If you're going to disagree with someone, do so without being disagreeable. #Level three headlines are recommended, though not required, when adding a new question, suggestion, or something you'd like to see. This is for ease of navigation. Now, this is (obviously) all new, so we're in what you'd call "seat of the pants" territory. I was unsure whether a blog or a forum would work better, but ended up deciding on a forum. If needs be, we can see about switching to a blog. And, if we stay with the forum, we may need to start archiving it at some point, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. For starters, I'll set up the categories, and put in some content. I'll throw out a softball for our new admins, and try and get a conversation going in the Suggestions section. Questions for the Admins To the new admins For Commdor and JakePT - as the newest admins to the wiki, what are your priorities? What would you like to see happen around here? SpartHawg948 07:20, April 21, 2011 (UTC) :JakePT here, at the moment, in addition to the regular keeping an eye out for vandals etc. my No.1 Priority is making sure all ME3 info is being handled correctly. I'm making sure the ME3 article doesn't get ridiculously large and repetitive and making sure people aren't misinterpreting info as it comes out. When I first joined the wiki ME2 info was coming out day by day and I was trying to stay on top of it, so I'll be doing that again this time around, but as an admin. Basically, the Mass Effect 3 article is my baby, and I'm always keeping an eye on it. :I've almost given up trying to influence the layout of certain pages and the general design of the wiki, simply because it seems like no one agrees with my approach and I end up having to compromise so much that I hate what I've done, but I do want to ensure the wiki is as clean, readable and pretty as it can be. Maybe now that I'm an admin, I'll push harder, but we'll see. :So, basically my priorities, as they were before becoming an admin, are Mass Effect 3, and tidying up the place as much as possible. I've started a list of gripes on my user page, and will try and fix them wherever I can, assuming others agree. If anyone agrees or disagrees with the issues I have, hit me up on my talk page and we'll work on fixing them together in a way the whole wiki is satisfied with.JakePT 07:38, April 21, 2011 (UTC) ::JakePT nailed it. For the time being, my horizon is ME3's release. The most important thing we can do now is keep up with the trickle of ME3 information as it arrives, then brace for the tsunami that ME3 will bring. After that, who knows? Of similar importance is watching for vandal activity, cleanup and general maintenance of articles, and maybe a few minor policy proposals or projects along the way. I actually think becoming an administrator hasn't changed my plans much. Sure, I've got a few new powers, but nothing that necessitates a major shift in how I edit, how I interact with the wiki in general. Looks like I'm still the same old Commdor. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:59, April 22, 2011 (UTC) Suggestions Speculation Policy So, I know the speculation policy has frequently been a source of some contention. Some people think it's too restrictive, and others that it's too lax. And some users point out that the policy, as currently enforced, seems inconsistent with the policy as it exists in the Community Guidelines. What thoughts or suggestions do the members of the community have? SpartHawg948 07:20, April 21, 2011 (UTC) :I don't think this will ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction. As you'd expect, these games drop a lot of hints about things that have happened and things that are to come, but unfortunately there's never going to be a situation where everyone agrees what a certain line or image is suggesting. Some things, like who Liara's mother is or whether or not Jack Harper is the Illusive Man, aren't exactly subtle, but even then, people disagree, and of course there's some things, such as whether or not Aria is Aleena, are far more vague. :It seems that the only way to avoid edit wars and disagreements is to delete everything that isn't explicitly stated in-game. Unforunately this means the wiki would look, to readers, completely and laughably oblivious to a lot of information. Alternatively we could have a much more lax policy, and allow articles to say that something "suggests" something, and just count on the good judgment of our editors to make sure speculation is kept to a reasonable level. This will probably lead to a lot of edit wars and arguments. I guess we just have to ask whether or not that's worth it. :Personally I'm generally in favour of deleting most things that aren't explicitly stated, but even I had to balk and the lack of any link between the Illusive Man and Jack Harper until recently.JakePT 07:50, April 21, 2011 (UTC) ::There are cases where this does need to be lax, and others where it needs to be enforced. However I think that the line: "It is clearly marked as being speculation, either under a “speculation” heading or with the sentence “some speculate that—” at the beginning of the paragraph" should be removed as there is currently nothing on the wiki that uses that phrasing and if trivia or anything else is added like that, it usually is removed quickly. Lancer1289 16:26, May 3, 2011 (UTC) :::Yeah, removing that bit seems like a good idea to me. It gets brought up too often by people who want to cherry-pick that one portion of the speculation policy to support whatever they want, without taking the rest of the policy into consideration. SpartHawg948 18:55, May 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::So should we take that to the policy forum, or just wait a few days to see if there are any objections to removing it? Lancer1289 20:00, May 3, 2011 (UTC) :::::Probably the forum, to be on the safe side. SpartHawg948 04:13, May 4, 2011 (UTC) 'Unnecessary Rewording' This has been bugging me for a while. Every so often I see a user make a great effort to improve the grammar of an article, only to see the changes rolled back en masse, simply because they were 'unnecessary'. I think this is a huge deterrent to new users with great copy editing skills from further contributing. Imagine if the extensive work that Tullis did copy-editing articles was summarily rolled back and challenged at (almost) every turn? There exists no policy against changing the content of an article 'needlessly', so there's no official reason to discourage it. Now if someone edits the article and the grammar is worsened, that's different. But rolling back a change simply because it's different seems a great waste of everyone's time, and ultimately a huge turn off to would-be contributors. I'm speaking in general here, but one user in particular (simply because of the amount of time he dedicates to the wiki) is the biggest 'offender'. Understand that this is not a personal vendetta or anything, but you happen to be most affected by what I'm saying. Please do not take this personally. Anyway, I'm not sure what exactly I want to happen from this particular line of discussion. I guess I'm just looking for opinions: Am I totally off-base in what I'm saying, or is there some general consensus that there should be more slack given to simple grammar edits? -- Dammej (talk) 01:38, June 22, 2011 (UTC) :At any rate, I'm with you. To be sure, I think most agree that undoing edits which change British/Commonwealth English to American English (or the reverse) is right and acceptable. Otherwise, I see no reason why other harmless grammar edits shouldn't be allowed to stay. -- AnotherRho 21:08, June 23, 2011 (UTC) ::Fair enough. This is most definitely a valid concern, and I'll be sure to keep my eye on it. Also, if you (either of you, or anyone for that matter) sees what you consider a particularly egregious undo of this sort, and wish to bring it to my attention or whatever, feel free. I don't think this is really something suitable for a revised policy or a project or anything, but it's certainly something we can work on improving, especially if it's a matter that is a point of concern for editors such as yourselves, i.e. editors whose opinions (in all honesty) mean quite a bit to me, and whose judgements strike me as pretty spot-on most times. SpartHawg948 22:57, June 23, 2011 (UTC) Things I'd like to see Wiki Background I mentioned this idea on Ramallah's blog about the Game Informer article that set light on info about Mass Effect 3. The way I see it, the skins are updated within a reasonable period of time, but the background has largely existed unchanged since the founding of the wiki, or at least as long as I've been here. I proposed on that blog the possibility of changing the background to the cover of the Game Informer article since it is a very nice cover and sets the table for ME3. Likewise, it does match the info in the issue, at least in part; though when I asked Lancer about it, he said sources are needed before the background can be changed to that particular cover. Naturally I agree with this but it would nevertheless be a nice change to the Wiki template for this site especially since the game comes out later this year. What are your views on this Spart? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 04:56, April 22, 2011 (UTC) :Hmmm... I see where you're coming from, and think you raise a pretty good point. I do need to ask for some clarification though - we're talking about the cover of the ME3 article in Game Informer, right? If so, I'm not sold on it. That image is ok, but honestly, I kinda hate Kaidan. He's just so... sucky. I kinda like the cover of the magazine more. Nevertheless, and leaving Kaidan's suckiness aside for a bit, I think the skin could use a change, and theming it to reflect ME3's impending release could be a pretty good idea. There was a blog about this a while back, but I think a project forum entry could be the way to go here, as hashing out the image would probably take a bit. SpartHawg948 06:13, April 22, 2011 (UTC) :I've been wanting to change the background for ages now, but it seems that other people are ignoring it, or my posts drop off the recent edits by the time the yanks wake up. I want the Citadel as a background, and it seemed for a bit there that everyone agreed with me. As for GameInformer, I agree that the front cover design would make an amazing background, unfortunately it features a massive iconic Shepard, and we'd be violating our no-Shepard policy right there in the background. If we can get a copy of the artwork of the Reaper attack on Earth without Shepard on it, that would be great.JakePT 07:37, April 22, 2011 (UTC) ::Curse you JakePT! When you make arguments that place site policy firmly on your side, you know I can't object! You've discovered my one weakness! That or poo gas. Oh, and also, Miranda's backside. Hey, I'm only human... :P SpartHawg948 07:45, April 22, 2011 (UTC) ::Also, I agree. The Reaper attack thing would be kinda cool. May be some possible spoiler issues, but we could probably hammer that out in the project forums. Hint, hint... SpartHawg948 07:46, April 22, 2011 (UTC) :::The background can still be changed, since on the Game Informer cover with ME3, Shep's more or less in the middle of the page (when not looking at both front and back), yet Shep's figure would be obscured by the template, since right now only about 25% of the current background is visible. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 11:31, April 22, 2011 (UTC) ::::Actually what I stated is that with the Game Informer cover, we could have problems with Game Informer and maybe the original artist if we didn't get their permission to use it first. Since there have been other problems raised, I guess that could be out of the question. As to changing the background, I guess I'll just have to see what people come up with before I can give an opinion. I don't mind the current background, but I'm not opposed to change. Lancer1289 15:20, April 22, 2011 (UTC) Another "Hide" option for Recent Changes There's just one thing I'd like to see added to the Recent Changes page (no idea if this is possible, I'm guessing the Wikia staff would have to be consulted). I'd like the option to hide blog comments from the RC, just like we can do with bot edits, unregistered user edits, minor edits, etc. All of the blog comments take up too much of space in RC and make it troublesome to check for actual article edits. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:21, April 22, 2011 (UTC) :I think that is something the staff would have to get involved in, however I've been to a number of wikis and I've never seen that option. Lancer1289 18:24, April 22, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah, I've never seen it either. I think it would have to be made from scratch or something, so odds are this may never happen. Better to throw it out there and hope than do nothing, though. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:27, April 22, 2011 (UTC) AJAX Feature for Recent Changes This is something I brought up before with Spart, but this is something that I would really like to see. The AJAX feature is something that I see around on other wikis, Dragon Age being one of them. Basically what this feature allows users to have the Recent Changes feature open, and it will auto refresh the page every minute. This way people who are watching the RC don't have to refresh the page every so often. What's even better about the feature is that it is completely optional. If you don't want it on, then you don't have to turn it on. If it's on, it will auto refresh the page, and if not, then nothing will happen. Now I could have just added this for myself, after figuring out how, but I figured this would be something good for the community as well. This is the RC page for the DA wiki, and box for AJAX is right here and look at the notice about it. Again if you don't want it on, then it doesn't have to be on, it is entirely optional. Lancer1289 18:34, April 22, 2011 (UTC) :I think last time I was in favor of adding this. Since it is entirely optional once installed, users who want it can use it, and users who don't can ignore it. I'd like to use it myself. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:01, April 22, 2011 (UTC) ::I believe it'd be better to have real-time additions to the RC menu, rather than using AJAX to auto-refresh every minute. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:03, April 22, 2011 (UTC) I don't think we can do real time, as this isn't a streaming site, but every minute seems to be the best thing. Since I seem to have some support here, I'll create a new project forum page at some point today, as I need to double check a few things, and see what happens. Lancer1289 14:57, April 24, 2011 (UTC) Forum page for this: Forum:Recent Changes Alterations as there is another thing that is to be discussed there. Lancer1289 01:07, April 25, 2011 (UTC) Online tracker Is it possible to add something on the wiki that enables a user to see how many (and which ones) users are online and how many are offline at any given time? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:41, April 23, 2011 (UTC) :Not that I'm aware of. Which isn't to say that there isn't a feature like this in existence, as I tend not to be aware of much computer-wise. We can certainly ask Wikia about it. SpartHawg948 06:28, April 24, 2011 (UTC) That would be awesome if we could get that going on. How do we ask? --Humans Vanish 06:32, April 24, 2011 (UTC) The feature does exist on other forum sites, such as Anime Rumor, but I haven't been to that site in at least 2-3 years. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 06:35, April 24, 2011 (UTC) There isn't a way to see how many are on at a time but you can see when a user last logged in and last edited at .--Kamikaz 19:35, May 3, 2011 (UTC) General Comments Couldn't think of anywhere else to put this, but what happened on the BioWare forums regarding this wiki? I've been down and out with a cold for the last week and apparently missed something. Can someone fill me in? JakePT 07:58, April 21, 2011 (UTC) :You'd really have to have seen it to get the full impact, but long story short is that a few users who've been problematic in the past (including User:Zulu DFA and User:Captain Obvious au) went on a rant against the wiki, using the usual complaints and issues: geth cruisers, the ogre statue from the Kasumi DLC, Morinth/Mirala, and the Jack Harper/TIM thing. It soon devolved into vitriolic attacks on the admins (mainly me), though a few people (including User:Fiery Phoenix) did defend the wiki. I'm fairly certain that it was deleted by the BioWare moderators due to the language of some of the parties involved. Long story short, it wasn't too pretty... SpartHawg948 08:03, April 21, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, it was deleted altogether by the mods. Cross-site debates are in direct conflict with the BioWare forum policy, so no surprise there. And it obviously wasn't going anywhere pleasant; most of the replies demonstrated a lack of tact in an otherwise eloquent discussion. I was surprised the mods hadn't caught it sooner. In any event, I'm sorry it got to that, Spart. Shouldn't have happened. -- Fiery Phoenix 14:20, April 22, 2011 (UTC)